Lexplug logoLexplug

Zahn et al. v. International Paper Co.

Supreme Court of United States
414 U.S. 291 (1973)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In a federal diversity class action filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), every plaintiff, including both named representatives and unnamed class members, must independently satisfy the statutory amount-in-controversy requirement. The claims of class members cannot be aggregated, nor can members with claims below the jurisdictional minimum gain entry to federal court through ancillary jurisdiction based on the claims of those who do meet the requirement.


Facts:

  • International Paper Co., a New York corporation, operated a pulp and paper-making plant.
  • Petitioners, including Zahn, owned or leased property fronting on Lake Champlain in Orwell, Vermont.
  • International Paper Co. allegedly permitted discharges from its plant to flow into Ticonderoga Creek.
  • These discharges were then carried by the creek into Lake Champlain.
  • The discharges allegedly polluted the waters of Lake Champlain.
  • The pollution allegedly damaged the value and utility of the surrounding properties owned by Zahn and others.

Procedural Posture:

  • Zahn and other property owners filed a diversity class action lawsuit against International Paper Co. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont.
  • The suit was brought on behalf of approximately 200 lakefront property owners and lessees.
  • The District Court found that while the named plaintiffs' claims each exceeded the $10,000 jurisdictional amount, not every member of the proposed class met this requirement.
  • The District Court, relying on Snyder v. Harris, refused to certify the class, ruling it lacked jurisdiction over the claims of members who did not individually meet the jurisdictional amount.
  • The property owners (appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
  • A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment, holding that each class member must meet the jurisdictional amount.
  • The property owners then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

In a diversity-based class action under Rule 23(b)(3), does federal jurisdiction extend to unnamed class members whose individual claims do not meet the statutory amount-in-controversy requirement, so long as the named plaintiffs' claims do?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice White

No. In a Rule 23(b)(3) class action, each plaintiff must satisfy the jurisdictional amount, and any plaintiff who does not must be dismissed from the case. The Court's long-standing interpretation of the 'matter in controversy' requirement, established in cases like Snyder v. Harris and Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc., mandates that plaintiffs with separate and distinct claims cannot aggregate them to meet the jurisdictional minimum. This rule applies to all members of a class action, not just the named plaintiffs. The 1966 amendments to Rule 23 were not intended to and did not alter this statutory requirement, as Rule 82 explicitly states that the procedural rules do not extend or limit the jurisdiction of federal courts. Any plaintiff without the jurisdictional amount must be dismissed, as one may not 'ride in on another's coattails.'


Dissenting - Justice Brennan

Yes. Once the named plaintiffs establish federal jurisdiction by meeting the amount-in-controversy requirement, the court should be able to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over the claims of the other class members. This approach aligns with the purpose of class actions, which are 'born of necessity' to handle numerous small claims efficiently and avoid redundant litigation. Denying ancillary jurisdiction undermines the utility of the class action device, imposes a larger burden on the entire judicial system, and prevents many claimants from having their rights adjudicated. The majority misapplies precedent like Snyder, which only determined whether an 'action' could be brought in the first place, and is inconsistent with cases like Supreme Tribe of Ben-Hur v. Cauble, which allowed ancillary jurisdiction over non-diverse class members.



Analysis:

This decision significantly narrowed the path to federal court for diversity-based class actions, especially in consumer, environmental, and mass tort cases where individual damages are often small. By requiring every single class member to meet the amount-in-controversy, the Court reinforced a strict interpretation of diversity jurisdiction that prioritized limiting the federal caseload over the efficiencies of the class action device. This holding created a major barrier to federal class actions for nearly three decades until it was largely superseded by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), which allows for federal jurisdiction based on the aggregate value of all claims. However, Zahn's principle remains the governing rule for class actions that do not fall under CAFA.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Zahn et al. v. International Paper Co. (1973) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Zahn et al. v. International Paper Co.